Comments on Ed Murray: A Letter of His Own
Gregoire can't afford to do any more 'studies.'
More indecisiveness by the State Democratic machine gives Dino Rossi a perfect opening in the next race for Governor: D in Democrat stands for "dither."
Gregoire must choose the Retrofit and simply tell WSDOT to make it work, which they can do if told to.
Yes, David. Retrofit. Yes, David. Gregoire must. Yes, David.
No one is about to spend $2 billion on a retrofit that may or may not work. The combination of a waste of money and uncertainty kill that idea.
Chopp's letter was nothing but a speaker's letter. He controls committee assignments in the House, so folks had to sign the letter or risk the Speaker's wrath. Frank Chopp sucks.
And the transit is exactly where, Josh and Dan? According to everything I've seen to date, everybody west of Highway 99 gets screwed. Check out the latest Sound Transit plan. Absolutely nothing in there that's going to provide "transit" of any kind of rapidity to Ballard, West Seattle, Greenwood, etc. SDOT's "BRT" plan is a joke- they don't even have a clue about how to get buses through the Junction. I'll probably keep driving since my car will be stuck behind that West Seattle bus and at least there I can tune in my own radio station.
"Condescending planners in Olympia," is it?
That's just funny, Josh, just hilarious. You call the kettle black with such style and such grace.
Well I think the hope is, that settled on a surface-transit option, they would have to pick an effective transit option, which would hopefully be something more like a monorail and less like BRT.
And we alll want transit up to Ballard, but for the moment our leadeers 'cough cough Greg Nickels' suck.
It wasn't money that killed the monorail, if the state coughed up a little more or they raised taxes a piece, which is what happens in every other city that builds mass transit, it woulda been fine. There was just a lack of political will. Again, one would hope that the surface-transit option would make politicians warm up a little bit.
Well I think the hope is, that settled on a surface-transit option, they would have to pick an effective transit option, which would hopefully be something more like a monorail and less like BRT.
And we alll want transit up to Ballard, but for the moment our leadeers 'cough cough Greg Nickels' suck.
It wasn't money that killed the monorail, if the state coughed up a little more or they raised taxes a piece, which is what happens in every other city that builds mass transit, it woulda been fine. There was just a lack of political will. Again, one would hope that the surface-transit option would make politicians warm up a little bit.
Heads up: The "tunnel" option is a non-starter. Nickels has been planning on abandoning it for six months.
It is a card he wants to discard: that gives him a leg to stand on when pitching RTID and ST2 -- "I'm fiscally prudent, and we will save you money by not building a tunnel!"
It gives Gov. Gregoire political points too. She gets to show what a big swinging dick she has: "I made Nickels back down on his fervent desire for a tunnel. What a strong, fiscally prudent leader I am."
The "tunnel" debate is meat tossed to the pack-of-servile-dogs-press so they don't write about real issues.
Dan,
Oh so witty.
What makes you say that, grow up? Do you know something I don't? Or are you speculating?
David Sucher:
Gregoire can't afford to do any more 'studies.'
More indecisiveness by the State Democratic machine gives Dino Rossi a perfect opening in the next race for Governor: D in Democrat stands for "dither."
Gregoire must choose the Retrofit and simply tell WSDOT to make it work, which they can do if told to.
Mr. Sucher, I happen to think the retrofit isn't such a bad idea after all, but would you mind putting down the pitchfork? Shaming and threatening anyone who doesn't agree with your one narrow viewpoint among many isn't exactly a formula for winning over converts.
By the way, in the last viaduct thread, I made a case for why the retrofit could be an acceptable, tolerable outcome for transit and density supporters like myself.
Oh, and I would argue that Gregoire doesn't necessarily have to make an absolute, final choice -- politically or practically. She could say:
"Okay, the tunnel is politically radioactive. And Seattle's elected leaders are dead set against a new viaduct. So it's time we changed the parameters of this discussion.
"I've decided to ask WSDOT to formally evaluate the retrofit. Specifically, what would it cost to retrofit the existing viaduct to make it reasonably safe against an earthquake? And I've decided to ask WSDOT and the City of Seattle to formally evaluate the no-build proposal. If we did tear down the viaduct without replacing it, how would we and the city reasonably mitigate the traffic impacts, what would that cost, and who would pay for it? Also, how would the city address concerns about the seawall?
"In changing the parameters of this discussion, I am expecting and insisting that the full amount of funds originally dedicated to viaduct replacement from the nickel gas-tax increase will no longer be available. Some portion of those funds needs to be shifted to the 520 project. Precisely how great that portion is I will not say so as not to prejudice the reports I've called for, but I can say for certain that the savings to Washington taxpayers from a retrofit must be significant. And the savings from the surface option must be even greater."
Heck, if Gregoire makes a move like this, she could cast herself as the governor who wants to save the taxpayers of Washington and the central Puget Sound a billion or so dollars. Let's see how Dino Rossi positions himself against that stake in the ground.
Re 6/7: Well I know *hope* for transit is what's pressing a lot of the surface transit people. It's the Grover Norquist methodology of reduction- take away options, squeeze government down, and things will be better. I can't think of anything less progressive and more elitist, in my opinion. It's leaving an entire set of the population out in the cold, so to speak.
There is nothing in the plans for anything more than BRT for West Seattle. Facing facts, BRT is simply lane marking. That stretch of highway over the West Seattle bridge (eastbound only) in reality does little to get buses moving that much faster. And with ST2 taking things out 30 years, you're talking at least the year 2040 before anything real has the potential to be planned to be completed for the people that live and work west of Highway 99.
Looking at the PWC's plan for dealing with the south end of the viaduct, they say:
- South End Distributor: create more and better connections from Spokane Street to 1st Ave, 4th Ave, I-5
- Make better links to Airport Way, 4th Ave, 6th Ave south of downtown
How exactly is this to be done PWC? Crossing those same railroad tracks on Spokane that are blocked hours a day from the same freight moving through you want to speed up? How exactly will West Seattle residents get to Belltown or Ballard (or those residents to West Seattle) when they have to plow through the heart of downtown to do it? Is the PWC calling for a total rebuild and expansion of the Spokane Street Viaduct, to dump more cars on one of the most clogged sections of I-5? That seems to be the scenario the surface option supporters lay out. I'd like to know exactly how many of them live west of Highway 99.
Also missing from this surface option plan is the integration of how cars/transport/people deal with Colman Dock. How will those people wanting to use the ferries (and in fact, the proposed *Mosquito Fleet* that will help bring people downtown) get into and through downtown? Through expansion of the Route 66 bus? Laughable. We'll then see the backups onto the ferry then either clogging Alaskan Way itself, or some frontage road.
The reality is that there is no planning to incorporate transit into PWC's plans. I'd like to see the research that backs up what Moon's urban planning has to say. That isn't done with the PWC's glossy pictures of "What the waterfront could look like".
Let's see, in painting his doomsday scenario against the PWC, Dave Coffman managed to work in Grover Norquist and one "elitist." Gee Dave, while you're at it, why don't you work in a Karl Rove and a "liberal" too?
Actually, the line of Dave's I find most amusing is this: There is nothing in the plans for anything more than BRT for West Seattle. Facing facts, BRT is simply lane marking.
It's amazing the double standard we have here for BRT:
You know things are getting a bit hyperbolic when you start seeing wild claims like "And with ST2 taking things out 30 years." If we'd had the guts to follow through with the Green Line, we could have had transit along that corridor in three years, not 30. The reality is that the ramifications of the PWC option or the tunnel are nowhere near as apocalyptic as their opponents make them out to be. By the same token, none of the real choices we're talking about here are painless.
And that speaks to why Seattle has gotten in the transportation mess it's in today: we've been going on and on avoiding change and pain in favor of the status quo. (Well, of course, there's another reason Seattle's in the fix it's in today: as far as I know, we're the only big city left in America without mass transit. Now that's something Grover Norquist could admire us for.)
It is entirely possible to get a decent BRT service to West Seattle, but people need to speak up to make sure that happens. The Spokane St Viaduct is going to be widened in a project starting next year. The new eastbound lane is listed as a "possible" HOV lane. We need to make sure that it is to make the existing one on the high level bridge useful.
They are also building a new ramp to 4th Ave from the eastbound lanes. That will *almost* connect to the busway. They plan to tear down the existing 4th ave ramp on the north side. Why isn't that being converted to an HOV on-ramp?
With those ramps, West Seattle's BRT route could proceed more or less directly onto the busway and into the tunnel. Not quite a monorail, but better than nothing.
West Seattle people aren't the only ones who use the Viaduct. Don't forget Vashon Island, which goes through West Seattle, and also Burien, Seatac, Tukwila, Normandy Park, and Des Moines, all linked to SR 99 by SR 509 and/or SR 599.
Until and unless there is rail rapid transit to connect all these communities (other than Vashon) with downtown Seattle and points beyond, The PWC option remains the most irresponsible, region-destroying idea imaginable.
The people who are really being condescending here are the amateur little would-be little social engineers who want everybody to get out of their cars and sacrifice their time and money to satisfy some wet-dream vision of their green, nonpolluting, "vibrant" city.
Some of them have even gad the gall to refer to themselves as "new urbanists." Hmph! Last time I heard something like that it was "New Socialist Man."
Oh, and Sucher, there is no "State Democratic Machine." Go peddle that crap on Sound Politics.
Cressona, I was in favor of the Green line from start to finish (and still am). I've never been in favor of BRT. I don't believe it's mass transit at all. Without infrastructure that dedicates space to BRT, buses still run on the same clogged roads. In my opinion a couple of traffic light changes and some lane marking don't change that. If infrastructure is going to be created lets at least get some of the traffic off of the roads everyone is talking about.
I agree that people will muddle through Cressona. I also agree that none of the options will be painless.
I do stick by my Grover Norquist analogy. ST2 taking things out 30 years isn't hyperbole- it's what's in the works. Check out their web site and documentation. I might even support parts of PWC's plan if I simply knew what it was, other than some glossy web site love-in and Stranger driven propaganda.
We need rapid transit. It's either going to be planned for now, or much more expensively later. The PWC is doing exactly what the Mayor is doing- putting forth their ideas about roads with nothing in the bucket for rapid transit. I think that's wrong.
Dave Coffman: Cressona, I was in favor of the Green line from start to finish (and still am). I've never been in favor of BRT. I don't believe it's mass transit at all. Without infrastructure that dedicates space to BRT, buses still run on the same clogged roads. In my opinion a couple of traffic light changes and some lane marking don't change that. If infrastructure is going to be created lets at least get some of the traffic off of the roads everyone is talking about.
Dave, I'm glad to know you were a Green Line supporter. As for BRT, I myself am opposed to it whenever it is offered as an alternative to real mass transit. I do think BRT has some limited potential where it complements mass transit and where it can serve as a stopgap until we get some real mass transit in.
West Seattle and points beyond could be a test case for the latter. I think Some Jerk put it right: just how rapid the "bus rapid transit" can be is a question of political will. It takes political will to establish dedicated lanes and build in some grade separation. And as Some Jerk noted, the Spokane Street project that's part of the "Bridging the Gap" package that just passed is a start.
In the long term, the only thing that's really going to work for West Seattle is light rail or monorail or the like. I know Richard Conlin has spoken of light rail to West Seattle in light of the Green Line's demise. And it's probably very much in line with Greg Nickels' vision since the only way he was going to try to save the Green Line was if it was truncated from West Seattle to King Street Station.
Dave Coffman: ST2 taking things out 30 years isn't hyperbole- it's what's in the works. Check out their web site and documentation.
I'm sure some economist put this more pithily, but you can never use current circumstances to project the impact of something that represents a fundamental change from current circumstances. If we really were going to go with the surface route, you would see light rail to West Seattle (and possibly points beyond) move up a lot higher on the priorities list. It would have to. Actually, even the retrofit probably would make that light rail route a higher priority, if only because of the retrofit's limited expected lifespan.
But even putting aside light rail specifically, the more high-powered backing the no-build receives -- the more possible it becomes -- the more you're going to see the blanks get filled in as to transit and alternative routes and mitigation. And it's not going to be Cary Moon filling in those blanks; it's going to be the electeds and the pros on the inside filling in those blanks.
Seattle commissioned a study on the west side corridors, the ICT study. Kinda painful to read now, since it makes such a good case for monorail. But it also showed streetcar was a good option for West Seattle.
BRT is a good interim option, but thinking big, why not interline a streetcar with Link in the tunnel and along the busway? Need to add track along Spokane and up to Fauntleroy, but this alternative had almost as many boardings as the WS leg of the monorail would have had. $450 million capital cost. (2000 $) Check it out.
Cressona, all of what you say kind of gets back to my main point- there's nothing in the transit bucket for anybody west of Highway 99. My read on what you say is tear down the viaduct, and then things will be so desperate that someone will have to do something. That's not planning, that's reading into a crystal ball and rubbing the lucky rabbits foot that the money will be left over to actually do something.
My point was that I don't see a light rail route to West Seattle or Ballard or anywhere west of Highway 99 on anybody's priority list. I don't see how when it's not there it moves up in priority. I also think that's an irresponsible way to plan for the future and in the end drives the costs up even higher. All of the transit and roads planning to date has included the viaduct or someway to move traffic through in an orderly fashion. Your "change in circumstance" will have widespread reprecussions throughout the region.
I don't share your enthusiasm that the blanks will be filled in by the politicos and people on the inside. It hasn't happened in the last 30+ years, and I don't see the leadership from the electeds and pros now. Which brings me back to my original point- which is people west of Highway 99 will get the short end of the stick.
Finally, I see the *nobuild* option as a version of "If you don't build it, they won't come". The problem with that is that *they* are already there, *they* are increasing in population (and encouraged to do so by the urbanists and politicos that want more density in exactly the place where there won't be the means to get them in and out) and *they* still need to be able to move about. I actually agree that density is the right way to increase the livability of the city, but I don't think taking away one of two routes through the city is wise. If we do it, future generations will pay without the corollary transit planning.
Dave Coffman: I don't share your enthusiasm that the blanks will be filled in by the politicos and people on the inside. It hasn't happened in the last 30+ years, and I don't see the leadership from the electeds and pros now.
This is a classic, easy, cynical cop-out. We can't trust the politicians to do anything right, so let's just assume they'll screw up any plan we don't like. Dave, what's your plan, and how do you know the politicians won't screw that up? At some point, the politicians have to do something right, or else what the heck is the point of continuing to live here?
By the way, the history of this region over the last 30-40 years is that the politicos have been way out ahead of the public in terms of transportation and land-use planning. How about all the mass transit packages that were voted down? How about the Growth Management Act? That wasn't coming from some grassroots groundswell.
Nobody is making the presumption that the no-build can't work without light rail to West Seattle. I myself am just saying the long-term solution has to be light rail or monorail. In the short term, BRT could be made to work just fine, and why wouldn't there be the political will to do that? I can virtually guarantee that Greg Nickels and an overwhelming majority of the City Council would enthusiastically support real BRT to West Seattle in a no-build scenario. And I can virtually guarantee that, if they put the extra funding for it to voters in the RTID or ST2, the voters would agree, or at least, that item wouldn't be the thing to bring down the RTID or ST2.
Likewise, nobody is presuming that BRT won't be in place already by the time the viaduct has to come down -- or that other mitigation and improvements won't be in place either.
Also, let's get real here. The viaduct is, at best, a weak #5 on the list of regional thoroughfares of significance. Look at all the other cities where they've torn down elevated highways. All the predicted catastrophes never came to pass.
Dave Coffman continued: Which brings me back to my original point- which is people west of Highway 99 will get the short end of the stick.
You see, Dave, you're engaging in classic Seattle conventional wisdom. We're so afraid of leaving somebody with the short end of the stick -- or even worse, leaving somebody else with the long end of the stick -- that we end up doing nothing. The prudent and cautious and thoughtful thing always becomes "do nothing" and "change nothing."
Just as a thought experiment, let's say we were overwhelmingly prudent and cautious and decided, okay, we're going to do the PWC option in the long run, but in the short run, we'll do the retrofit. So we go ahead and build a fabulous light rail line to West Seattle and points beyond. We build all kinds of alternative routes. And you know what? Even then, even if it's 25 years from now, no matter how much we mitigate, no matter how much alternative capacity we put in, someone's going to be bent out of shape and someone else is going to feel some kind of impact the moment we tear down the viaduct. It's going to be some kind of trauma whether you get weaned off your mother's tit when you're two years old or 10 years old.
Ok Cressona, let's get real.
1) Since there are only two north south true through routes in the city, I have a hard time how you get that the viaduct is a "weak #5". Please explain that one.
2) I'm happy to see that you're "virtually guaranteeing" that Nickels and the City Council will come through for West Seattle and that the voters will as well. I'd like to hear it from the horses mouth.
3) I'm in favor of rebuilding our infrastructure and seeing that a rapid transit system takes hold. I'm in favor of a tunnel/rebuild but not in favor of PWC's plan as it sits without a comprehensive vetting of how public transport and other travel ways will deal with the loss of a critical piece of our north/south infrastructure. For me they are not mutually exclusive. I believe many people that live west of Highway 99 feel the same way. Making life a travel hell for a couple of hundred thousand people is one hell of a short stick. I believe common sense has been thrown out the window.
Comparing apples to oranges and bananas (ie SF and other city teardowns) is a waste of time. None of those cities have only 2 true ways through the city and in my opinion are not comparable.
We're gonna disagree Cressona (and I'll disagree with Josh, Dan, ECB and the rest of the Stranger crew as well). I think it's terribly shortsighted to destroy a part of necessary transportation infrastructure without more than just a funky website, and promises made by bloggers that the politicians will "do the right thing". I might be cynical, but it's no cop out.
Dave Coffman: Ok Cressona, let's get real.
1) Since there are only two north south true through routes in the city, I have a hard time how you get that the viaduct is a "weak #5". Please explain that one.
Right off the bat, I can name four thoroughfares that are of vastly greater regional significance:
Even SR 167 might be more heavily used.
And here's a passage from Erica Barnett's recent story: "A look at WSDOT’s actual traffic counts, as measured by a computerized sensor on the roadway itself, however, shows 'annual average daily traffic' of just 74,700 vehicles—just 68 percent of the number tunnel boosters like to use." In comparison, Montlake Blvd., a surface route, carries 62,00 cars a day. If Montlake, a humble surface route, carries only 17% less traffic than the double-decker, grade-separated viaduct, you could make a strong case that the Montlake route is far more vital and more richly deserves a grade-separated highway of its own.
On top of all that -- yeah sure, we have only two north-south highways through town -- but for all practical purposes, not only is the viaduct small potatoes compared to I-5 in terms of raw trips, but it's got to be even less significant in comparison in terms of actual trips through downtown. I mean, how many drivers actually use the viaduct to just pass through downtown? Never mind that, if there's anything urban planners have learned in the past generation, it's that it's an incredible waste to build infrastructure that's intended only for passing through downtowns. And never mind that nobody's building elevated highways along downtown waterfronts anywhere in the Western world today. So we really are considering spending billions of dollars to essentially preserve (and expand) something that we would never do today from scratch.
And you think this is worth $3 billion? There are 6 million people in the state of Washington. Let's say the taxpayers of this state are on the hook for $2 billion and another $1 billion of interest. And let's say over the course of paying that debt, the population averages out to 7 million. That comes out to $429 for every man, woman, and child in the state of Washington. You think that's worth it? And do you think that's a higher priority than the 520 project?
Dave Coffman: I'm in favor of a tunnel/rebuild but not in favor of PWC's plan as it sits without a comprehensive vetting of how public transport and other travel ways will deal with the loss of a critical piece of our north/south infrastructure.
I don't think any elected official who is seriously considering the surface route is not expecting to undertake a spectacularly comprehensive vetting.
Dave Coffman: Making life a travel hell for a couple of hundred thousand people is one hell of a short stick.
Dave, you must be getting pretty desperate if you're drifting back to hyperbole land. Actually, "hell" is what's going to happen to millions of people as they lose places to live and farmable land as a result of global warming. Hurricane Katrina was our own little all-American foreshadowing of a bit of that. "Hell" is what our troops are going through in Iraq -- a country that we wouldn't have given a second thought to invading if not for our nation's dependence on foreign oil. "Hell" is not the minor inconvenience that will be inflicted on people by a project that, by the time it's implemented, will have been planned and mitigated ad infinitum.
I'm not desperate Cressona. I'm just practical.
And by the way, I've been to and seen some hellish places in this world. I don't need someone else to define it for me. I will however, turn to you when I need a show of hyperbole.
Cressona,
To paraphrase Dean Wormer from Animal House - condescending, dogmatic, and naive is no way to go through life.
Re #23: Hate to break it to you, but removing the viaduct will not stop global warming. (It might even increase CO2 emissions, if people spend more time in stop-and-go traffic.)
Also, ECB's 74,700 vehicles number was debunked way back in the comments to this story. It's pretty clear she got it by cherry-picking a spot with low numbers.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).